Talk:John Keel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Link to Pratchett?[edit]

Should it be included that the pseudonym of the main character in Terry Pratchetts Nightwatch is "John Keel"? -- 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I, for one, was looking for the character in the Pratchett novel, not this ufologist. (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Middle name[edit]

I thought - on the basis of librarians' entries (in the Cambridge University Library), and so on - that John A. Keel's middle name was Alva. Can anyone confirm this? If so, the article may be suitably updated. Hair Commodore (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's confirmed by several sources:
These are definitely reliable enough to add it to the article. --MCB (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References[edit]

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Troubles with Bootlegging and Piracy of his works[edit]

A problem that constantly dogged most of Mr Keels' life was the unauthorised publishing of his books, for which he received no payment. There was also the problem of his telephone being tapped at times by persons unknown. He was not paranoid, a New York Telephone engineer pointed out to him the clumsy way his phone was being re-routed at a local exchange. (see 'our Haunted Planet'). He did not think such clumsy Tapping looked like the work of Official Agencies, he never discovered who the eavesdroppers were.Johnwrd (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Please correct: the term "ultraterrestrials" was already used several times in 'UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse'.Gertdik (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem if you have a WP:RS saying something different than what was reported by The Daily Telegraph. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fickle Finger of Fate[edit] Is this a book by THE Keel or a different one? Same publisher as 1971 Our Haunted Planet and earlier Strange Creatures from Time and Space —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Keel's Jadoo originally came out in hardback.

Operation Trojan Horse[edit]

I recently started an article Operation Trojan Horse, and after I spent a few hours summarizing the book for the sake of interested parties, some administrator deleted it on the grounds that it was "original research" or "not notable". I think it's a notable book, based on how much it was "quoted and plagiarized". And of course, I didn't do any research at all. What do you think? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have for Keel's claim that his book was frequently quoted or plagiarized? So far, all you did basically was regurgitate the claims he made in this obscure book. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You need to provide evidence that the book satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. You asked on my my Talk page if I think the article should have been deleted. Yes I do. Aside from the notability issues, you seem to have confused a book report (reading a book and then summarizing what you think is the important content in it) with a Wikipedia book article (reading what multiple, reliable secondary sources have said about the content and then summarizing that). There really was nothing useful or otherwise worth retaining in what you wrote, and so deletion was justified.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what the motivations really are for invoking all kinds of Wikipedia policies in order to suppress what I wrote. LuckyLouie even deleted the copy I put here in the discussion page so that other people could judge! ([1]) I've never seen such a thing happen before. Wikipedia should be a place where people can come when they want to find out information on a subject that interests them. It shouldn't be a purified sanctum sanctorum where certain things are suppressed supposedly on grounds of not being "notable" or whatever. (Just because you haven't heard of a book, you can't issue a decree that it is not notable, or worthy of an article for those who find the subject interesting and important.) I'm sure that when Wikipedia was set up, the rules were not meant to be used in this way. Unlike you, I don't have time for protracted fights on Wikipedia, nor do I put "watch points" on articles to make sure nobody goes against my will. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We are invoking our policies to explain what you did wrong and why you are being repeatedly reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike, I noticed that you reverted my edit in which I gave a link to my synopsis of Operation Trojan Horse. I wonder what motivation or justification you have for that. Don't you think people should be directed to further information on the book if they are interested? And why did you revert somebody's "See also" list? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the links were not to articles, but to evanescent expressions of opinion which violate WP:OR (and WP:NPOV. Some links were also placed on articles utterly irrelevant to Keel, such as that on H. P. Lovecraft. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't justify getting rid of my link to my summary. I'm putting it back in. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Your summary is original research and synthesis, and does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing; it has been removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter anymore whether it's original research or synthesis, since it's not part of Wikipedia. And I disagree that it's unreliable. You are saying that I am an unreliable person when it comes to reading a book and summarizing it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It's in Wikipedia, it's part of Wikipeda. You don't link to it unless it qualifies as a reliable source (and no, something you or I write here is by definition not a reliable source, since it's not undergone any form of stringent editorial control. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

what a tragedy that WIKI allows the Lies about MOTHMAN[edit]

there is every reason to believe there is no real wikipedia explanation of John Keel in so far as his book the Mothman Prophecies was not about Mothman but about Men In Black, the real MIBs, not the false Lies in hollywood Movies. MIBs are alien ET Human Hybrids who cause chaos, or gather info on people, or threaten People for some unknown Agenda. It was all covered expertly in the Mothman Prophecies that the region of West Va and border area at Ohio was a massive ET alien visitation or the region in 1967...the US Military showed no interest in a phone call from Keel about actual ET ships in the skies there weekly...The movie based on this Keel book was mostly a Lie as well. youtube entry of john keel spoken claims about ufos is here : It would be nice to see this input from me placed in the Article section as some actual valid information on the issue about Keel but I doubt Wiki contributors and controllers of the site have the backbone to do it. Blondeignore (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)